ARUN JYOTHI vs D/o Post

1
OA.No.170/00884/2016/CAT/BANGALORE


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU



ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00884/2016


TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026



CORAM:

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)


HON’BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)


Arun Jyothi
Aged 36 years,
w/o Virupakshi,
BPM, Hospet BO
A/w Yermaras SO 584 134
Under Raichur HO,
Residing at Hospet Village
Raichur Taluk & Dist .... Applicant

(By Shri K. Govindaraj, Advocate)

Vs.

1. The Union of India
Represented by the Secretary
Dept. of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001

2. The Postmaster General
North Karnataka Region
Dharwad 580 001

3. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Raichur Division 584 101 .… Respondents

(By Shri S. Prakash Shetty, Senior Panel Counsel-through video
conference)




KAVYA SHREE K
CAT, Bangalore
2026.10.23 18:07:47+05'30'

2
OA.No.170/00884/2016/CAT/BANGALORE





O R D E R (ORAL)

PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)


This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following
reliefs:
“(i) That this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased quash the
Memo No. B-11/GDS/Engagement/Dlgs/2016, dated
31.8.2016, at Annexure A6, issued by the Supdt. Of Post
Offices, Raichur by which the services of the applicant has
been terminated by cancelling her engagement, in the
interest of justice and equity.

(ii) To direct the respondents to consider the case of the
applicant for regularizing her services in the same existing
vacant post, or in any alternative post, in the interest of
justice and equity.

(iii) To pass such orders as this Hon’ble deems fit and
expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case
including the cost of this application.”

2. Originally this matter was heard and disposed of by this
Tribunal vide order dated 09.10.2017 observing that while applicant
had acquired a legitimate right of being placed in the accommodation
in the next arising vacancy, they have to keep the applicant in the
waiting list and directed that in the first instance itself an order to be
passed accommodating her in the available vacancy anywhere.

KAVYA SHREE K
CAT, Bangalore
2026.10.23 18:07:47+05'30'

3
OA.No.170/00884/2016/CAT/BANGALORE


3. On the challenge made to the said order by the respondents
before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.
200136/2018, the same came to be allowed vide order dated
07.06.2024, setting aside the order of this Tribunal passed in OA No.
884/2016 dated 09.10.2017 and restoring the matter to the file of this
Tribunal, Bangalore Bench keeping open all the contentions of the
parties making it clear that no adjudication has been made on merits
of the case. This order was communicated to this Bench by the
original respondents through MA No. 199/2026 filed on 01.06.2026.
This MA was heard and allowed by order dated 31.07.2026, and
accordingly, directed the Registry to list the matter for hearing. On
18.09.2026 at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant, the matter was adjourned to 14.10.2026. Accordingly, the
matter is listed today for hearing afresh before this Bench.

4. Facts in brief are that the applicant was engaged as
officiating GDS BPM, Hospet BO along with Yermaras SO under
Raichur HO on stop gap arrangement, in the vacant post caused due
to promotion of the incumbent as Postman. The applicant claims that
she is working in the said post since 09.10.2012 and has put in about
four years of unblemished service in the department. Recruitment
KAVYA SHREE K
CAT, Bangalore
2026.10.23 18:07:47+05'30'

4
OA.No.170/00884/2016/CAT/BANGALORE


Notification dated 27.01.2014 was issued to fill up the said post of
GDS BPM, Hospet BO along with Yermaras SO on regular basis.
The applicant also participated in the said selection process but was
not successful. One Shri Sahib Naik was selected and was appointed
as BPM. He worked for some time and resigned the job, therefore, a
second Recruitment Notification dated 10.05.2016 was issued to fill
up the said post on regular basis. Though the applicant participated,
but could not succeed. One Smt. Nivedita is said to have been
selected but she also did not join the post. Therefore, the applicant
claims that she continued to work as BPM on stop gap arrangement,
however, the SPOs, Raichur vide Memo dated 31.08.2016, has
issued orders cancelling the engagement of the applicant on the
ground that there is a proposal for online selection of Gramin Dak
Sevaks. Being aggrieved, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel Shri K. Govindaraj representing the
applicant submitted that the applicant was continuously engaged as
GDS BPM on stop gap arrangement basis since 09.10.2012,
renewing the appointment at every three months for about four years.
As such, she should be considered for regular appointment to the said
post instead of selecting another person, or in the event of offering
KAVYA SHREE K
CAT, Bangalore
2026.10.23 18:07:47+05'30'

5
OA.No.170/00884/2016/CAT/BANGALORE


appointment to the selected candidate, alternatively, she has to be
provided with any other GDS post as per the provisions of the rules.
Learned counsel has emphasised on the instructions contained in sub
para (2) of DG Posts OMs dated 18.05.1979 and 30.12.1999,
incorporated as para 17, under Section IV (under the head-Method
of Recruitment) of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001
(‘Rules’ for short). Learned counsel submits that non-consideration
of the applicant in the light of the said OMs is violative of the said
instructions and untenable in law. Learned counsel made an
endeavour to distinguish the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 24557/2013 (DD: 18.11.2013) ( The
Superintendent of Post Offices and Ors. vs. Sandeep H.L. )
submitting that the employee therein continued for different spells
from 22.09.2008 to 02.11.2011, whereas the applicant herein has
worked for nearly about four years. Hence, her case has to be
considered as per para 17 (2)-the provisional appointment of ED
agents.

6. Learned counsel Shri S. Prakash Shetty representing the
respondents placing reliance on the order of Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in Sandeep H.L. , supra, submitted that the issue involved
KAVYA SHREE K
CAT, Bangalore
2026.10.23 18:07:47+05'30'

6
OA.No.170/00884/2016/CAT/BANGALORE


herein is squarely covered by the said decision, and accordingly, the
OA deserves to be dismissed since the applicant was appointed on
stop gap arrangement. Para 17 (2)-provisional appointment of ED
agents is not applicable to the present case. The applicant though
participated pursuant to two Recruitment Notifications issued to fill
up the post of BPM, Hospet BO, she could not succeed because of
her low merit. There being difference between stop gap arrangement
and provisional appointment, the applicant cannot claim either for
regularization or to place her in the waiting list as the provisional
candidate. Thus, justifying the cancellation of engagement order of
the applicant dated 31.08.2016, seeks for dismissal of the OA.

7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. It is not in dispute that the applicant was engaged as GDS
BPM, Hospet BO along with Yermaras SO on stop gap arrangement,
the same has been substantiated by the stop gap arrangement orders
placed on record by both the parties. The applicant has accepted the
stop gap arrangement knowing well that the engagement is purely
temporary and liable to be terminated without notice and without
assigning any reason. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
KAVYA SHREE K
CAT, Bangalore
2026.10.23 18:07:47+05'30'

7
OA.No.170/00884/2016/CAT/BANGALORE


applicant on para 17 (2)-provisional appointment of ED agents based
on DGP&T letter dated 18.05.1979 and Circular dated 30.12.1999
has no relevancy to the facts of the case for the following reasons.

9. For the better understanding, para 17 referred to above is
extracted hereunder for ready reference:
“(17) Provisional appointment of ED Agents -It has come to the
notice of this office that provisional appointments made to ED
posts are being allowed to continue for indefinite periods and
when regular appointments are made, the provisionally
appointed persons do not readily hand over the charge. The
following instructions are issued in this regard:-

(i) As far as possible, provisional appointments should be
avoided. Provisional appointments should not be made to fill the
vacancies caused by the retirement of ED Agents. In such cases,
the Appointing Authority should take action well in time before
the retirement of the incumbent ED Agent, to select a suitable
successor.

(ii) Wherever possible, provisional appointments should be made
only for specific periods. The appointed person should be given
to understand that the appointment will be terminated on expiry
of the specified period and that he will have no claim for regular
appointment. Where a new Post Office is opened or where a new
post is created or where an ED Agent dies while in service or
resigns from his post and it is not possible to make regular
appointment immediately, a provisional appointment should be
made for a specific period. The offer for appointment should be
in the form annexed (Annexure-A).

(iii) Where an ED Agent is put off duty pending departmental or
judicial proceedings against him and it is not possible to
ascertain the period by which the departmental/judicial
proceedings are likely to be finalized, a provisional appointment
may be made, in the form annexed (Annexure-B). It should be
KAVYA SHREE K
CAT, Bangalore
2026.10.23 18:07:47+05'30'

8
OA.No.170/00884/2016/CAT/BANGALORE


made clear to the provisionally appointed persons that if ever it
is decided to reinstate the previous incumbent, the provisional
appointment will be terminated and that he shall have no claim
to any appointment.

Even in cases where an appointment is made to fill the vacancy
caused by the dismissal/removal of an ED Agent and the
dismissed/removed employee has not exhausted all channels of
appeal, the appointment should only be provisional. The offer for
appointment should be in the form annexed (Annexure-B).

2. Efforts should be made to give alternative employment to ED
Agents who are appointed provisionally and subsequently
discharged from service due to administrative reasons, if at the
time of discharge they had put in not less than three years'
continuous approved service. In such cases, their names should
be included in the waiting list of ED Agents discharged from
service, prescribed in D.G., P.&T., Letter No.43-4/77-Pen.,
dated 23.2.1979."

10. This provision specifically refers to provisional
appointment. It is trite that provisional appointment is different and
distinct from that of stop gap arrangement. This issue has been
extensively considered by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Sandeep H.L., supra, wherein it is held thus:
“7. The method of recruitment on regular basis is also
prescribed under the Rules. The minimum and maximum age
limit is prescribed apart from educational qualifications for
being appointed on regular basis. Interviews will be conducted
to find out the suitability of the candidate for the post of GDSMD.

From the aforementioned Rules, it is amply clear that even for
making provisional appointment the candidate has to undergo
the process of regular appointment. The list of provisional
appointees would be prepared by the petitioners for being
KAVYA SHREE K
CAT, Bangalore
2026.10.23 18:07:47+05'30'

9
OA.No.170/00884/2016/CAT/BANGALORE


appointed provisionally on subsequent dates. Such list will be
prepared after following the due process laid down for the
appointment on regular basis. Thus, it is clear that a candidate
who is appointed on provisional basis also will have to undergo
test prescribed for regular appointment. On the other hand, for
availing the services of a candidate on stop-gap arrangement,
the Department need not have to post the candidate to undergo
process of regular appointment. Aforementioned Rules clearly
reveal that on no circumstance, should provisional appointment
be made without following the formality which is prescribed for
regular appointment. Since whole process of such selection will
take about 60 to 90 days, stop-gap arrangement may preferably
made at the local level by way of interim arrangement, through
combination of duties or by allowing the GDS from a
neighbouring office to function. Under no circumstances, such
local appointment should exceed 90 days. Due to some
unavoidable reasons, if the local appointment needs to be
continued beyond 90 days, approval of the next higher authority
is to be taken on one time basis for the reasons to be recorded in
writing. Thus, it is clear that a stop-gap arrangement is nothing,
but a local appointment for delivering mails on day-today basis
till provisional or regular appointment is made. The stop-gap
appointee has no right to claim regular appointment under the
Rules.

In the matter on hand, the respondent was admittedly
taken on duty on local appointment/stop- gap appointment. He
was not appointed provisionally. He has not passed the test or
has completed the formality which is prescribed for regular
appointment. In this view of the matter, it is not open for the
respondent to claim continued service on regular basis and
consequently, the Tribunal is not justified in directing the
petitioners to include the name of the respondent in the list of
candidates who will be appointed regularly. Hence, the
impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the
following order is made:-

The impugned order dated 13.2.2013 passed in
O.A.No.499/2011 is quashed.

Writ petition is allowed accordingly.”
KAVYA SHREE K
CAT, Bangalore
2026.10.23 18:07:47+05'30'

10
OA.No.170/00884/2016/CAT/BANGALORE



11. In the light of this judgment it is clear that a stop gap
arrangement is different from provisional appointment and the same
being an interim arrangement, the stop gap appointee has no right to
claim regular appointment under the rules or to place her in the
waiting list, hence, the arguments advanced on behalf of the
applicant that if she is not regularized, alternatively she ought to have
been placed in the waiting list is wholly misconceived. Stop gap
arrangement cannot be equated with provisional appointment which
requires the formality/procedure prescribed for regular appointment
to be fulfilled. No vested right is created to a stop gap appointee to
get automatically regularized in the post. The impugned termination
order is issued in view of proposal for online selection of Gramin
Dak Sevaks. Appointment of candidates on regular basis in terms of
the statutory rules and thereby replacing the stop gap
appointee/applicant cannot be faulted with. The applicant had an
opportunity to participate in the recruitment proceedings initiated,
indeed she availed it but unfortunately she could not succeed. Hence,
she cannot now seek backdoor entry contrary to the Rules.

KAVYA SHREE K
CAT, Bangalore
2026.10.23 18:07:47+05'30'

11
OA.No.170/00884/2016/CAT/BANGALORE


12. For the reasons aforesaid, OA is bereft of merit, and
accordingly, stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.




Sd/- Sd/-



( DR. SANJIV KUMAR ) ( JUSTICE S. SUJATHA )
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)



/ksk/
KAVYA SHREE K
CAT, Bangalore
2026.10.23 18:07:47+05'30'